Logical proof of evidence for God and creation. (And a universe full of it.)

Question to atheist # 1: If the statement is true, "God created the genetic code and DNA to create life", would the genetic code and DNA be evidence for God? ...If your answer is "no", how and why would it NOT be valid evidence of God (while noting that if God created the genetic code, nothing else did)?

(Hint: The answer to the above is "yes", because the genetic code and DNA as potential evidence for anything else would be 100% falsified, when we have objective proof that God is/was its author.)

Question to atheist # 2: Do you have 100% objective proof that God *didn't* create the genetic code and DNA to create life? If "yes", please provide your proof with zero speculative language.

(Hint: No such proof exists.)

Question to atheist # 3: Aside from the genetic code and DNA, can you name a SINGLE code (that meets the following definition), that was NOT designed by an intelligent being?

Note that ALL evidence, either for "naturalism" or "creationism" is in a POTENTIAL state, until the objective proof is in, as to which "suspect" is responsible.

...This is why it's logically impossible to claim that we do NOT have a mountain of evidence for God and creation; this is why ALL OF CREATION is evidence for God.

Further, unless you can provide another example of a code that was NOT created by an intelligent being under the definition provided, we have 100% inference that the genetic code and DNA was created by an intelligent being. And 0% inference that it was a result of naturalistic, mindless, Godless causation.

Note that this is in NO WAY begging the question, or a circular argument, because we're assuming based on logic that *both* naturalism and creationism are theoretical possibilities. And that all of creation is evidence (in a required "potential" state), until the objective proof is in.

Answer #1{ I can answer that with another question. How do you know that God created DNA? You asserts that your god in particular did so, but you provide no evidence. Which brings me to...

Answer #2: No, but I don't need to. You're shifting the burden of proof. It's not up to me to prove you god doesn't exist. It's up to you to prove that your god does exist.

Answer #3: DNA is not literally code. Humans refer to it as code as a helpful analogy to understand how it works. Thus, your question is invalid. As for your claim or "potential states," I can answer that with a riddle: what was the tallest mountain on Earth before Mount Everest was discovered? The answer: Mount Everest. Facts exist independently of whether you believe them or not.

No, your argument isn't begging the question or a circular argument...it's a whole different fallacy called the Argument From Personal Incredulity. "I, personally, find it ridiculous that the universe could have formed naturally, therefore, it MUST have been poofed into existence by my particular deity, regardless of evidence!"

Re: Q1.
Statement: "God created the genetic code and DNA to create life".
The statement does not prove that God exists since DNA exists since divine agency i s not a requirement of the existence of DNA. The existence of DNA says nothing for or against the existence of a deity, and even if it did, wouldn't identify WHICH deity.

Re: Q2
There is no proof that any given deity did not create DNA. Lack of proof is not proof of lack. As this argument would be non-falsifiable, it is thus metaphysical and not part of scientific enquiry. It is simply unprovable conjecture.

Re: Q3
DNA is not actually a code in the same way as Morse Code or Python.

There is no evidence for God. That is why you have to have FAITH, to believe in something despite the very real knowledge you could be wrong.

Aside from the genetic code and DNA, can you name a SINGLE code (that meets the following definition), that was NOT designed by an intelligent being?

Besides the fact that your whole argument, "goldliger", is fallacious from start to the end, I will additionally provide more than one example of encoding of information which was NOT designed by any "intelligent being":

- Bird songs (Encodes social requests like "This is MY territory!" into sound waves)
- Honeybee dances (Encodes information about direction and distance to flowers with nectar into sequences of movement)
- Colouring of certain plants (Encodes for example the information "Don't eat me! I am toxic!" into color code)

Will you now renounce your "god"? Ah, I forgot, you have "faith" ... this will stay forever the only thing that supports the existence of your "god".

What a load of pretentious codswallop. Although we live in a society that encourages us to have an opinion about everything, and that everyone's opinion is equally valid, relativism is actually bollocks. Truth is truth, facts are facts. Just because no-one can prove that there isn't a god, doesn't mean it's just as likely that there is one. You know, you can't just write the word "logical" in order to actually be logical. And I don't think you really understand what the word means.

"Logical proof of evidence for God and creation. (And a universe full of it.)"

You use the word logical quite wrongly, dear sir.

As others have rebutted your questions already, I won't retype similar answers, but ask you some instead.

1) Why would you try to convert atheists with simple wordplay and shifting the burden of proof, with no solid evidence to back up your own arguments? No rational person would buy this.

2) What convinced you that God was real? I highly doubt it was this same "logic" you try to shovel our way.

3) Why would I turn to any monotheistic major religion, when they are all basically the same morally deprived drivel with a sore excuse of a deity as a tyrant? I'd much more like a pantheon of different and much cooler gods and godlike beings. After all their claim to the truth is just as strong as yours.

Stating that your "proofs" are in no way circular logic when in fact they are a classic example of circular logic at its finest is fundamentalism at its finest.
We don't have to prove god didn't write the genetic code, you have to prove conclusively he did and that it was the same god that wrote your bible.
Stating that all of "creation" is proof of god is a circular argument. You still haven't proven god exists or that the universe needs a creator in the first place. There are plenty of scientific explanations for why we exist, none require a creator.
Your logical proofs are neither proofs or logical.
Massive fail.

"Note that this is in NO WAY begging the question, or a circular argument..."

Thanks for pointing that out, because otherwise I'd have thought it was a circular argument and begging the question. But your CAPS LOCK KEY is irrefutable proof that it is indeed logical and reasoned evidence.

Oh, and thanks for giving me something to laugh at on an otherwise depressing day.

You don't throw sheet music at a piano and get a concerto. You don't put a blueprint next to a bag of cement and expect a house.

On the other hand DNA can build complex polypeptides from simple amino acids via direct contact (Or as direct as can be expected on the atomic level) or via a catalyzing molecule. That's not a blueprint, that's the toolbox.

Notice that while the codes given as examples were formed by intelligence they also need to be deciphered by intelligence. Your not going to tell me that Triazole or some enzyme that's less than 40 atoms in total is intelligent.

The examples of given code are abstracts. Language, binary, Morse code they're just insubstantial ideas unless someone decides to act on them.

The proteins built by DNA (and by extension the lifeforms built by those proteins) are a direct result of the chemical properties of the DNA itself. Let's say I shot Goldliger in the sternum with a US special forces approved sniper rifle chambering 7.62mm NATO rifle rounds. It would leave grapefruit sized exit wound in his back, considerably larger than the bullet (just as the organism created by DNA is larger than the DNA itself). Did the bullet contain the code for the size and shape of the torso penetrating wound? If a forensic ballistics expert figures out the caliber of the bullet by measuring the blood splatter and wound expansion did they "Decode" the bullet?

No.

It is a direct result of the physical and chemical characteristics of the bullet and the gunpowder that propelled it.

DNA by itself doesn't "prove" anything in the context used. However, DNA is evidence that every organism on earth is related to every other organism on earth. It's evidence that, at one time, there was only one organism and it has gradually evolved, over a couple billion years, into the myriad forms we share the planet with today.

"Question to atheist # 1: If the statement is true, "God created the genetic code and DNA to create life", would the genetic code and DNA be evidence for God? ...If your answer is "no", how and why would it NOT be valid evidence of God (while noting that if God created the genetic code, nothing else did)?"

No. The existence of a genetic code is not evidence God created it even if, in fact, God had.

Consider the following. If James murdered Betty and Fred, does the murder of Betty and Fred prove James did it, given that if James had murdered them, then no-one else did?

It would be a lot simpler for the police if the fact that there had been a murder was instantly also proof of who committed it, but sadly it's a fantasy even CSI won't stretch to.

You have an unprovable premise that involves an omnipotent being, therefore you can co-opt anything to be evidence of it. That is not scientifically rigorous and, I suspect, an extremely shaky proposition on logical grounds. All the verbal gymnastics in the world wont change that.

1. if you make something, and do not leave any evidence of that, and someone else finds it, does that persuade someone that you exist? no, because he does not know who made it. it is true that i made it, but there is no inherent proof. and if you altready know he exists and made it, why would you be looking for proof?

2. no, this can not be 100% proven. however, there is also 0% proof that any higher force is responsible for its creation. plus, it has been shown that this can be created by other, spontaneus means, without the intervention of a so far unknown an unseen entity. a quick slice with Occam's razor, and most scientist go for the possibilty without divinity.

3. DNA is not the same as a computercode. it is a simple system where one part of the DNA recieves a neurological trigger, and emits one of itself to create a reaction. similar processes occur in yo.. i mean every brain at every milisecond, most without your notice.

even if al awners where yes, all that you have proven is that we cannot be sure that there is not anything out there (and this comes from question 2 by itself, the other two prove nothing). this does not automaticly mean that there must be a higher power, letr alone that it must automaticly be your higher power.